December 21, 2014, 09:39:14 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - 7enderbender

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 43
Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm or Tamron 24-70mm
« on: January 15, 2014, 06:29:57 PM »
Depends on what your main next goal is and what style you're approaching I guess.

I have and love the 135. It works great for those environmental sneak up portraits during events. It has a great look and it's just my thing. What I always find odd is that people want faster, non-f/4 lenses for low light. Yes, you can do that too but for me it's primarily about control over DOF.
For everything else there are speedlites etc.
Yes, I know there are those moments at a wedding where you can't use it.

For the standard stuff during the reception your f/4 lenses are just fine I would argue. In fact their benefit is that they are lighter. And you probably shoot at 5.6 or 8 anyway.

Fast primes serve a different purpose in my view.

If you'll do more weddings you could also look at the 100L macro. Serves well for portraits, has IS if you like that and of course is a macro lens for ring shots and other details.

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105 vs canon 24-70 ii
« on: January 03, 2014, 08:56:03 AM »
I just got the 24-70mkii and sold my 24-105. Never really have a use for it. I like using prime and got the 24-70mk2. Thinking I would not need to use my prime lenses any more. I was right I havent use any of my primes. The 24-70 never leaves my camera, but lately Ive been disappointed on the AF on my 6D. While it was good using the center AF only and just started using the outer af as my baby starts to walk. I also get inconsistent focus on the center unless my subject is completely still. So I end up ordering the 5D mk3 and will be getting rid of the 6D. Hope its all worth it.

I used to recompose my shots with 5D II(on/off focus results). Now with 5D III, I only use 41 combination of dual and cross AF points. Recompose shot is almost down to none. Nail it every times.

Once you shoot with 5D III, I don't think you want to shoot anything else - except 1D x ;D

To me, putting extra $1000ish to get much better AF system is worth every penny.

Interesting how experiences can vary. I sent the 5diii back with the feeling that there was no real life difference over my 5dii. After reviewing the results from an event I shot with both cameras I had no desire to upgrade at all.
Yes, the focus of course is faster. But especially having all these extra AF points in the same confined area around the center provided no benefit in my book. If anything it slowed emu down having to scroll through too many of them.
I'd like to see fewer AF points but further spread out across the screen.

But then again I have a feeling that future models will have even more "features" that I have no use for.

Software & Accessories / Re: Reco Config for Mac Pro (2013)
« on: January 02, 2014, 02:18:56 PM »
I'm no expert and I have no idea what exactly you are doing overall in in PS in particular. But I would argue that you don't need a Mac Pro. I just bought a slightly tricked out Mac Mini (i7, SSD, 8GB) and I have no doubt that the thing will do anything I can possibly throw at it. And my main application for that machine is going to be LR, PS and a bunch of audio recording stuff (which is a lot more demanding than what I would ever do in photoshop).

Just for laughs and giggles: the Mini is replacing my 10 year old designated desktop PC which is a Pentium 4 with 4GB (3 of which are usable) - and even that thing was still workable within reason.

So far I've been doing most of my photo editing on my old IBM T60 laptop (which has a wonderful hi res screen by the way - too bad they stopped making those). That one's from 2007. Even that handles several files with multiple layers if need be.

Don't get me wrong. If money was no issue I would most certainly have the latest version of Darth Vader's trash can. Just because. But I would argue that very few people actually need it in this day and age.

Software & Accessories / CS5 PC to CS6 MAC crossgrade?
« on: January 02, 2014, 12:35:22 PM »
Hi there,

Has anyone here recently switched from PC to Mac with the corresponding PS versions? I have PS CS5 for PC and I will continue using that on my laptop.

Just chatted with Adobe sales and they would sell me a "crossgrade" to CS6 for Mac - but then the CS5 for Win would expire. I think I heard in the past that technically you can still use it but I don't want to intentionally break their silly rules (even though I think I really should be entitled to using MY software license on whichever 2 computer I chose, just like I can with LR). It's $199 and that's not really helping in my case.

I qualify for an educator discount so I could get the full CS6 version for 350. That's way more than what I paid for CS5. And no, I will not do Creative Cloud. Never. Even if it were free.

Thoughts on how to get this to work? CS5 for Mac would be fine also. I don't really need the "upgrade" - just the ability to use it on a Win laptop and a Mac desktop.

Thanks and all the best for 2014!

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Will vintage lenses help me find the way?
« on: December 30, 2013, 03:42:37 PM »
Just do the obvious thing and pick up a "white box" 24-105mm zoom. It will be much cheaper than accumulating several primes and allow you to experiment with various focal lengths. Later, as your budget allows you can start accumulating primes if that's what you want.

Hm. Not sure about that. It depends on what the OP is after really in his photography. I personally find the 24-105 to be a very limiting lens because it is f/4. I really only use it for portrait shots with studio lighting where you stop down anyway. For everything else it's pretty expensive for what it is.

I agree though that MF lenses are no fun on a modern camera given the limitations of today's AF viewfinders. Interchangeable screens only help very little with that issue.

My recommendation would always be to start with primes to have more DOF options. The OP already has the nifty-fifty so I would add another prime in that class such as the 85 or 100 or something at the wide end if that's more desired. Yes, they are plastic and everything. But honestly, so are most of the L lenses. Just better plastic. Optics are all very good and certainly not worse than on the 24-105 (which is optically also great, don't get me wrong).

Software & Accessories / Re: New Monitor for Mac:wide color gamut or not?
« on: December 26, 2013, 01:25:58 PM »
[...] At first the wide gamut settings led to some garish web pages and applications, but once I set up the Dell Monitor Manager and set it to switch to sRGB for general applications, configured my monitor profile (Datacolor Spyder for me) in Firefox/Waterfox, and such, it works perfectly! [...]

Thanks for the input and the real life experience. What you mention here is really the essence of my question and also brings up what Drizzt321 brings up as a concern.

No, I still do very little paid photo work - and in this day and age I'm sure that most of it will be for web use in most cases anyway. I personally don't even own a photo printer and have no intentions in getting one. I'll rather pay the few good printing houses and let them deal with it - and few of those even consider aRGB profiles etc.

Don't get me wrong - I'd love having the option. And I'm ok with spending some extra money for that. BUT - if that means that 95% of everything else gets thrown off - meaning everything in sRGB will display with neon-reds and off greens then what's the point? I understand that there are "color aware" programs while others are not. For daily browser work I prefer Chrome - so that's already an issue from what I hear.

But then again - I'm curious about the "set it to switch for general applications" statement above. What exactly do you mean? Does this apply only to those applications that are smart enough such as Firefox or others as well?

Software & Accessories / Re: Black-rapid failure!
« on: December 26, 2013, 12:06:17 PM »
I'm actually surprised to not read things like that more often (snowboarding or not). I could never get myself to even consider that single screw connection. I would leave that to sports shooters and other folks who carry multiple bodies at a time - and get their geared payed for. But that's just me.

Software & Accessories / New Monitor for Mac:wide color gamut or not?
« on: December 26, 2013, 12:01:34 PM »
So here is the old question again: wide color gamut or not?

I finally pulled the trigger on a new Mac Mini to replace my ancient Dell desktop. Defined use for that thing will be a mix of audio recording, photo editing and basic general use. I specifically went with the Mini as opposed to an iMac to not get stuck with the shiny 27" all in one monitor design.

Of the 27" ~$1000 monitor options such as Dell or NEC there seem to be plenty that are now extremely good for the money and they have finally worked out the anti-glare coating issues. Connectivity on especially the Dell models is great (better than the Apple Thunderbolt really). So it comes down to the old issues with wide gamut over sRGB standard models.

Does anyone have any recent experiences, e.g. with the Dell U2713H (wide gamut) vs U2713HM (standard)? Or can anyone make a compelling argument for the Apple Thunderbolt display (shiny which I don't like, USB2, no option to connect a second old PC)? Or should I keep it simple and go with one of the mid range NECs which lose in the connectivity department but may be overall better quality?

For calibration I already have the Xrite ColorMunki Display (which I know is not compatible with Dell's hardware calibration but should work just fine with a software profile I think).

Canon General / Re: Why Wedding Photographers’ Prices are “Wack”?
« on: December 24, 2013, 09:01:38 AM »
I think at the core of the counter argument in that two-year old craigslist rant lies why few photographers make a decent living if they're trying to go full time. And why so many then do stuff that they probably never signed up for (I personally have no interests in shooting weddings).

What do I mean? It's really an economic argument. The photographer who responded to the cranky bride makes a classic mistake: argue with cost. The thing is, cost is completely irrelevant for the value you're selling. It's only relevant for your own book keeping and as a market entry barrier (or lack thereof really in photography).
Anyone, in any line of business who is calculating their prices as a function of their cost will not be doing well most likely. Not always a popular viewpoint where many folks still remember the good-old-cost-plus-markup.

I could go on and on about it and draw some parallels with the problems in my main line of work in the healthcare sector. But that usually gets me in trouble ;-)

Just some food for thought.

CPS is aimed for Professionals, and i'm sure if they were to find out that you were not a professional, you could lose your status.  Being both a professional and a CPS member, i find threads like these kind of sad, but, for those who take advantage and bend the rules for your own gain, karma always comes back around...

What is sad are posts like these as they appear to be judgmental and pompous. What, may I ask are the criteria for being a "professional?" Where is the line drawn? Primary source of income? Your main job? How many gigs you've done? How often someone has paid for an image of yours? The level of ambiguity to this determination is huge to an extent to which I don't believe you have given any thought.

I don't quite understand how anyone is taking advantage or bending the rules. I'm quite certain that if Canon/CPS was overly concerned about making their memberships exclusive only to high level pros, they would do so. I tend to believe based on the way things are set up that they are really only concerned about whether you have spent enough money on their stuff.

I have a career which pays me very well which allows me to have the luxury of owning a lot of gear without having to do photography as a job. I do paid gigs for fun here and there and have plenty of gear which doesn't all necessarily get used on those jobs. Does that make me not a professional? Am I not qualified to get my equipment worked on?

Canon sells products and provides a way for you to get them serviced which also costs money. Who is anyone to tell another photog they shouldn't be allowed to have membership if they are willing to pay the money for both?

I'm pretty sure there is a higher likelihood of running into some bad karma when you are being wrongfully judgmental of others and/or being full of yourself.

I fully agree. And not to start another argument over what "professional" means, but especially in a difficult field like this I look at this question more as driven by results more than anything else. Very few people make a good living as a full time pro photographer I would argue. And even then a lot of the income may not come directly from taking photos these days but from workshops, web services, etc.

It doesn't matter. I personally take on professional gigs every now and then - and by that I mean I get hired or asked because of my results. More often then not I do this for charity. I have a "regular" job and at the moment would likely not be able to make that same kind of money with photography that I make in my day job. That's my choice.

And with that it was also my choice to buy a lot of Canon equipment. This is Canon's business model after all. They make a professional line of camera gear and then a lot of "normal" guys (and some gals) go and buy Canon stuff as well. In return they offer a few discounts on repairs and cleanings to folks who have bought enough. How I make my money to spend on their gear is non of their business. And when talking to them I got the impression that they don't care. They actually want people to sign up. In my case even after  I broke a lens. They want members. It's a marketing tool. They want happy customers who will by more stuff later. It's not some fancy privilege. It's a discount on repairs. And a loaner program to tickle you for the next thing on your list.

Are there any other benefits of joining CPS? That is, none of my gear has needed repairs and while cleaning is free a couple of times a year, shipping is not (if I recall)-- so it pretty much cancels out on my end.

So, besides a fancy neck strap, is there anything else an amateur photog like me is forgetting? I've read through the list, but I didn't feel like anything jumped out at me.

I qualify for Gold status and was happy to sign up when I needed a repair of my 200mm. And they were fine with me upgrading to gold after the lens broke.

Benefits: discount on the repair, sold the silly strap, free cleanings and a few loaners. Turned out to be a wash.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 135mm f/2 DG OS Art Coming? [CR1]
« on: December 17, 2013, 10:53:37 AM »
It's great if there are more choices. I'm happy with my 135L and don't want OS/IS. BUT if Sigma delivers something with similar optical qualities with better build quality/less plastic I'd be curious at least.

I've never been too thrilled with the cheap feel of the EF lenses (coming from Canon FD). So there is a market for things that feel more solid.

I personally would rule out the 6D for myself for other reasons. AF performance is not necessarily one of them. Few examples:

I have a 5DII and the AF is considered "bad" on this one. It works for me. In fact, I recently shot an event with my 5DII and a 5DIII. The results in the end and the number of keepers from each camera were pretty similar. I didn't think the number of AF points on the Mark III was particularly helpful. They are centered around the middle just like on any other modern AF camera. If they were spread out further it may be a different story but just having more points in more or less the same center section of the frame doesn't change much for me. Yes, it's a bit faster and all, but like I said under real life circumstances I found no reason to spend more money and switch. I'd rather spend the money on a second 5DII actually.

With the 6D I'm pretty sure it's the same thing. It'll work just fine for most applications. In fact, I was just messing around with an old Nikon N6006 film body and found the one AF center point quite refreshing. Shockingly, that thing isn't really that much slower or finicky in low light compared to today's stuff - and we're talking a straight consumer product. Just a wee bit more noisy ;-)

EOS-M / Re: Eos M vs Fujifilm X100
« on: December 14, 2013, 05:54:20 PM »
I personally wouldn't go near anything without an optical viewfinder (of sorts).

The X100s is still on my short list. No interest in the EOS M at all.

The Fuji would make a good travel companion and always-in-the-backpack-camera for everyday.

I wish it came with a classic 45 or 55 lens instead of the 35 equivalent though.

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105 vs canon 24-70 ii
« on: December 09, 2013, 08:48:05 AM »
This question keeps crossing my mind as well. And I keep watching the price of the 24-70. I think it's still too pricy for what it is. Yes, optically it's great but I don't like the plastic build quality.

But once it reaches the original price of the version one - maybe. I have the 24-105 and it is a really good lens. My only issue with it that it's f/4 which for what I often do limits its usefulness. IS is pointless in my book.

So the best use for it is landscape stuff (which I rarely do) and standard studio type portraits.

For that it is actually very good believe it or not. Maybe I lucked out with a sharper copy but there are are really no issues. Excellent value lens.

Still thinking to add a good version 1 24-70 at some point.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 43